Skip to main content

tv   [untitled]    April 11, 2011 1:30am-2:00am PDT

1:30 am
>> san francisco is historic preservation commission has come to the conclusion that 25 and 35 the lord is our qualified for the national and california register of historic resources. there is concern that the city of san francisco may be setting a disturbing precedent. given the alternatives, other office would prefer the adoption of alternative b, which is the preservation alternative. this alternative would not demolish the resources and restored them in compliance with the secretary of the interiors standards. given these facts and the fact that the developer has shown no interest or intent to work with the people in the neighborhood, we ask this commission to only
1:31 am
approved alternative b. thank you. >> thank you. is there any additional public comment on this? >> hello, commissioners. i was not going to speak on this item that because the neighborhood association board devoted to take a neutral position on the demolition of a broader -- demolition of a garage. our position, i wanted to clarify, that we would like to leave that decision up tuesday -- up to the hbc and this body. we came to two of our general
1:32 am
meetings and gave presentations and they came to four of our board meetings and they work very closely with us in reference to addressing the possible historic significance of the garages. i just want to clarify that. thank you. >> is there any additional public comment? seeing none, public comment is closed. >> you are in consideration of findings and final actions. the public hearing is closed. the item and a consideration is item nine. this is for 25-35 delores' street. before you is a proposed certification of the final environmental impact report. >> the item before you is
1:33 am
certification of the final environmental impact report for the proposed project. a copy of the drought certification motion is before you. this was published on july 14th, 2010. the public hearing was held on september 2nd, 2010. the public comment. closed on september 13th, 2010. the comments and responses document was published on march 16th, 2011. this addressed the impact of demolition of historic resources. this found that the demolition of the existing buildings would result in a significant unavoidable environmental impact on historic resources that could not be mitigated to less than significant levels. the commission would need to adopt the statement of overriding considerations.
1:34 am
should the commission approved to -- approve the project. the planning department requests that you adopt the motion before you which certifies that the contents that these are adequate and accurate and procedures through which the report was prepared complies with provisions of sequel, the sequel guidelines and chapter 31 of the administrative code. this concludes my presentation. >> thank you. >> our by to go to mitigation is. i did not notice this before but under the cultural resource mitigation,, i think you have a conflict on the photographic documentation that is required.
1:35 am
this say it's a dangerous precedent. people do not know if this meant mitigation of a resourced. >> that mitigation measure, does that -- >> that is a dangerous precedent part. >> i cannot interpret what they mean.
1:36 am
these are the large format, the film packs and electronic manipulations. those are not acceptable. thsecond point of this goes on d says that the prince shall be five by seven. both of the roll film being used are supposed to be archived -- archive fully processed. i think that you need to clarify that. my personal opinion is 35 millimeters for this building.
1:37 am
this is just an observation. >> thank you, could afternoon. sarah jones. this is our standard mitigation measure for restore resourced impact but we will raise this issue with our preservation staff for the future. we will straighten that inconsistently at -- inconsistency out. thank you. >> my understanding that the code out -- kodak plants are closed. there is no film or development of methods to be used. perhaps we need to update our language to digital or whatever the right one is. this is funny because just a few weeks ago, this plant closed. >> i think that they still require film, do they not?
1:38 am
>> you are raising a point that we will need to resolve. this will involve confiscation -- consultation with our staff. >> i think that the plant that closed was kodachrome. black and white is pretty much still available. if kodak is not making it, i think the europeans and japanese are still producing it. this is coming back, don't worry. >> the intent is still there that we don't want this to be manipulated. >> that's right. >> move to certify. >> second. >> commissioners, on the motion to certify the final environmental impact report, -- >> aye. >> aye.
1:39 am
>> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> thank you, commissioners. >> if i might say, miss borden started at the same time as i did. this is the first eir she has seen from beginning to end. congratulations. >> you are now on item number 10. case number 2006.848ecv. as you considered the request for a conditional use authorization, the assistant zoning administrator will consider the requests for variances. >> that afternoon, president olague, members of the commission. this is a -- to exist the
1:40 am
existing historic warehouses and construct a four story residential building with 37 dwelling units and 28 parking spaces located within a below grade parking garage. this is located near the intersection of market and delores street. the project requires a conditional use authorization to develop a lot that is greater than 10,000 square feet, to develop a residential density not exceeding one dwelling unit per 100 feet of drilling area. this has variances for front setback, rear yard, four two units. this is a good housing project and this is well served by transit.
1:41 am
the sponsor is requesting one to one parking or 37 parking spaces for 37 falling units and the department is recommending 28. our position is consistent with the position on several nearby projects. additional parking requests are supported by the neighborhood association and two neighbors. the parking request is not supported by the hayes valley neighborhood association and a neighbor. the motion before you does not support the request for additional parking. should the commission decide to grant the conditional use request, staff will prepare a new motion that will come back to you at a later date for
1:42 am
adoption. the department is recommending approval with conditions and the adoption of ceqa findings and this concludes my presentation. >> thank you. project sponsor. >> good afternoon, president olague and commissioners. we have enjoyed working with michael smith from staff and i believe that this presentation to you is very thorough so i will not take up too much of your time. i would like to call to your attention that this has undergone a planning review process including an environmental impact report, public comments, and prior public hearings including this one on september 2nd of last year. this has been vetted by the historic preservation commission and a public hearing in august.
1:43 am
i will be happy to answer any questions that you have. question afternoon, commissioners. i am the sponsor for this project. i asked you today to simply endorse a five-year collaborative effort between the developer and the neighborhood. we have worked in close association with the direct neighbors on the clinton park street and you will hear that we have done much to mitigate any air lost to them. we have worked with the mission delores' association, as you know. it goes without saying that this project will improve the
1:44 am
streetscape. at this point, there is a tear and the fabric which will be improved. we are adding a significant amount a family units to the neighborhood. the neighborhood has thousands of people now interested in enjoying the park. i believe there is only one matter of controversy and that is the question of parking. again, i asked you to endorse an agreement we have reached with our neighborhood group. i will give you some conditions or reasons why and i will remind you that the mission to glorious -- the mission dolores river came when you're considering the market octavia plan in first place.
1:45 am
this commission voted for a one- to-one parking ratio for the zoning in this area which was subsequently changed by the board of supervisors. we will bring and -- 75% of units will be to end three- bedroom units. most of the people will have cars. they will be bringing this into a neighborhood with a parking deficit. we are not asking for more than allowed.
1:46 am
this is about as logical that has said that we would not be allowed to put in kitchens or cabinets because we would be next to a wholefoods delhi. i think that there is no good reason not to allow for this parking. i asked you to endorse what has been a successful collaboration between the developer and its neighbors. thank you. >> i am the architect for the project. i will not talk about parking. i would like to run through the project. the project is located on the first block of dolores street. this covers two of the warehouse buildings that have been mentioned. these are the pictures of the
1:47 am
warehouse building. as you know, you are familiar with the site across the street where you have approved the whole foods project. one of the things we have done is work with our neighbors and understand where they're coming from. you can see the outline of the two warehouse buildings and a lot of our neighbors have many ins and outs. except for the building north of us, here, we would be considered a key lot because these buildings actually abut our buildings. the buildings to the south where one of the previous protesters were, this is a modern building
1:48 am
and has a deep recess here and has another like well. there is a very nice rear yard that is shared by the residents on rosalind place. these are pictures from the roof of our project. these are the residents on clinton park. not only do they cover 80% of the lot, these take out the rest. this is a light well in the court. in working out our typical floor plans, we made a big effort not only to have it but 35 feet to the existing pattern but also to cut out this notch for our neighbors on clinton parks giving them a backyard that they will have.
1:49 am
on all of the other light wells, we respected them by setting our buildings back at least 5 feet. in dealing with the facade, we started walking around and he liked the public interaction. in san francisco, we have many of our own precedents. our victorians are usually set back with stoops and stairs going back up. the majority of these buildings have been replaced by parking. this is a nice precedent that exists in san francisco. we chose to build upon at as our
1:50 am
building. we have set back the front 6 feet. we can have units that the street. we can improve the sidewalk. we have an encroachment permit to build on that. the articulation, this is showing movers. we wanted it the architecture to embrace a live ability between the setbacks and maneuvers that would help people with their stairs. this was amalgamated into a facade. we have changed the architecture. one of the things that we were required to have was a conditional use for is that our lot is so large. we took the of the 22 break the building up into two parts.
1:51 am
we are trying to work within a plot that has other forefoot buildings. this is breaking up the articulation so it has scale. at the rear of this site, we have gone down as well. our building will appear about 30 feet. the existing warehouse is between 30 and 35 feet. this has diminished the impact of the building. we are paying homage to the tall lobby space and almost decorating the garage door so this is not a prominent element.
1:52 am
i'm available for questions. thank you. >> lets up it up for public comment. we have one speaker card. >> hello, president olague and commissioners. if the historic grudges are to be demolished, i want to let you know that the neighborhood association fully enthusiastic supports this project. we have met with the project sponsor half a dozen times. at this point, we are very pleased with the design they have come up with.
1:53 am
in reference to the parking, let me remind you that there was overwhelming support in our neighborhood 4121 parking. the commission voted for the plan. in reference to the projects along market, it was never our intent for one to one parking. all we were looking for was for parking to sustain the area. we were very pleased that the project sponsor increased the amount to to three-bedroom units. i have lived in the area for 21 years. when people decided to have
1:54 am
kids, they would move to san michio county. -- san mateo county. when someone decides to have kids, they stay in the area. it is quite exciting. this is much easier, as i am sure people would agree, having a car to accommodate bringing their kids to school. this might be close to market so we would appreciate it if the planning commission would respect the will of the people. as you know, it was overwhelming during the plan. this is very much the mission dolores neighborhood.
1:55 am
during the upper market workshop, the consultants that worked with the neighbors, overwhelmingly the neighbors wanted to their individual neighborhoods to be respected and we want the same here. this is a group of neighborhoods. >> thank you. >> is any additional public comment? >> good afternoon, commissioners. i live a few blocks away from this project site. i am here to support the project. this is the type of project that the market octavia plan envisioned. i will temper my support with a
1:56 am
copy out. the one to one parking is inappropriate. i am here to defend the plan. neighbors from throughout the area weighed in on this plan and i want to to defend the outcome of that plan. when we started to create exceptions to the plan, we watered down the plan. one of the important aspects is parking. we are trying to create an area that is walkable, safe for pedestrians and bicycles. i respect the project sponsor but kitchens to not have the impact on the neighborhood that automobile traffic does. this area is heavily served by
1:57 am
public transit. you have haight street come up bart is within walking district -- distance. this is on three major bicycle routes. you have a lot of pedestrian traffic. the more you add to this area, you can see the work here. we have a lot of progress coming on line. the more cars we add, the less successful this plan will be. there are many projects coming on line here. there is one across the street that has five spaces per unit.
1:58 am
and as many to or three-bedroom units. there are several projects over at you can in and market. these all fall within the guidelines of the market and octavia area. i am adamant about defending the plan. no matter how we got there, we are there. >> thank you. >> i am one of the residence and
1:59 am
that they were talking about. that actually took this off the website. i was listening to their comments and i have to respectfully disagree with one of the speakers who says that the only controversy is parking and they had worked in collaboration with the neighbors. we are right next door. i never talked to them or had a conversation with them about this project. we have got all the notices said things like that. normally, i am not able to come to these things. i have lived there for almost 15 years. i was concerned when i hear things like they're going to improve the


info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on